DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ... · labeled as Section 2.2.3, and the text under the heading Composite Redevelopment Scenario for the Existing Site should be labeled

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

SOUTHERN REGION

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

RECORD OF DECISION

FOR

PROPOSED AIRPORT RELOCATION PROJECT

AT

PANAMA CITY-BAY COUNTY

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA

September 15, 2006

Final EIS Errata Sheet

The following list contains minor changes and corrections to the Final EIS that were identified during the Final Environmental Impact Statement comment period:

1. The final paragraph on page 2-5 should be placed under the heading of Ultimate Development Components Beyond 2018 but preceding the accompanying bullets. In addition, the Ultimate Development Components Beyond 2018 section, once revised as indicated above, should be labeled as Section 2.2.3, and the text under the heading Composite Redevelopment Scenario for the Existing Site should be labeled as Section 2.2.4.

2. Section 4.23 includes an incorrect reference to the Panama City Metropolitan Planning Organization. The correct name of the organization is the Bay County Transportation Planning Organization.

3. Section 5.8.4.2 reads “The potential mitigation options would be similar for this alternative as those discussed in Section 5.8.3.1.” The correct reference is to Section 5.8.4.1.

4. The stepped retention system description in Section 5.8.4.3 was included in error and should be deleted.

5. In the second sentence of the first paragraph in Section 5.11.2.3, “Pine Log State Park” should be revised to “Pine Log State Forest.”

6. In Table 5-92, Biotic Communities/Listed Species and Surface Transportation Impacts for the West Bay Site should have read “potential” for cumulative impacts.

7. Appendix R, Mitigation Commitments, Endangered and Threatened Species: In the first bullet, “…acres of…” should be deleted to be consistent with the other sections of the FEIS that use the same sentence.

1

Panama City-Bay County International Airport

Record of Decision

Table of Contents Page

1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 4

2.0 Background………………………………………………………………………... 6

3.0 Requested Federal Actions and Approvals………………………………………… 10

3.1 Federal Actions and Approvals……….…………………………………. 10

3.2 List of Federal and State Permits and Approvals………………………… 10

4.0 Aviation Forecasts…………………………………………………………………. 12

5.0 Purpose and Need………………………………………………………………….. 16

5.1 Purpose…………………………………………………………………… 16

5.2 Need……………..……………………………………………………… 17

6.0 Alternatives Analysis………………………………………………………………. 19

6.1 Level 1 Screening………………………………………………………… 19

6.1.1 Meet FAA Safety and Design Standards…………………………. 19

6.1.2 Provide for Demand within the Market Area…………………… 20

6.1.3 Compatibility with Airspace Configuration and Utilization ……. 20

6.1.4 Level 1 Findings………………………………………………….. 21

6.2 Level 2 Screening………………………………………………………… 21

6.2.1 Impacts to the Natural Environment……………………………. 21

6.2.2 Community Impacts…………………………………………….. 23

6.2.3 Level 2 Findings………………………………………………….. 23

6.3 Description of Alternatives Retained for Detailed Consideration………... 24

6.4 Comparison of Impacts…………………………………………………… 27

7.0 Environmentally Preferred Alternative, Agency Preferred Alternative,

and Selected Alternative ………………………………………………………….. 33

7.1 Environmentally Preferred Alternative …………………………..………. 33

7.2 FAA’s Preferred Alternative……………………………………………… 33

7.3 Selected Alternative ……………………………………………………… 37

8.0 Public Outreach, Agency, and Tribal Coordination………………………………... 38

8.1 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination…………………………… 38

8.2 Additional Agency Coordination…………………………………………. 40

8.3 Tribal Coordination……………………………………………………….. 42

8.4 Permits……………………………………………………………………. 42

9.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures…………………………………. 43

9.1 Noise and Compatible Land Use…………………………………………. 46

9.2 Social/Induced Impacts…………………………………………………… 46

9.3 Environmental Justice……………………………………………………. 47

9.4 Air Quality………………………………………………………………... 47

9.5 Water Quality……………………………………………………………… 48

9.6 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Resources,

DOT Section 4(f), and Section 6(f) Properties……………………………. 52

9.7 Biotic Communities……………………………………………………….. 53

9.8 Endangered and Threatened Species……………………………………… 55

9.9 Wetlands…………………………………………………………………… 56

9.10 Floodplains………………………………………………………………… 57

9.11 Coastal Zone Management Program and Coastal Barriers………………… 58

9.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers……………………………………………………. 58

9.13 Farmlands………………………………………………………………….. 58

9.14 Energy Supply and Natural Resources……………………………………. 59

9.15 Light Emissions…………………………………………………………… 59

9.16 Solid Waste Impact……………………………………………………….. 59

9.17 Hazardous Materials……………………………………………………… 59

9.18 Construction Impacts……………………………………………………… 60

9.19 Surface Transportation……………………………………………………. 60

9.20 Surface Transportation Noise…………………………………………….. 62

9.21 Design, Art, and Architecture…………………………………………….. 62

2


Record of Decision

9.22 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts……………………………………… 62 10.0 Comments on the Final EIS………………………………………………………... 66 11.0 Agency Findings…………………………………………………………………… 67 12.0 Conditions of Approval............................................................................................. 75

13.0 Decision and Order………………………………………………………………… 76

Tables Table 1 – Comparison of Airport Sponsor’s Forecasts and FAA 2003 TAF for Passenger

Enplanements And Total Operations for PFN…………………………………… 13 Table 2 – Comparison of 2003 and 2005 FAA TAF for Passenger Enplanements

And Total Operations for PFN…………………………………………………… 14 Table 3 – Comparison of Airport Sponsor’s Forecasts and 2005 FAA TAF Forecasts for Passenger

Enplanements And Total Operations for PFN…………………………………… 15 Table 4 – Environmental Consequences Summary Matrix – 2008…………………………… 28 Table 5 – Environmental Consequences Summary Matrix – 2018…………………………… 30 Table 6 – Secondary and Cumulative Impact Categories…………………………………….. 32 Table 7 – Required Mitigation Measures……………………………………………………... 44 Table 8 – Biotic Communities Impacts (acres)……………………………………………….. 53

Figures Figure 1 – Airport Land Use Map………………………………………………. Following Page 5 Figure 2 – Airport Location Map………………………………………………... Following Page 9 Figure 3 – Jurisdictional Wetlands with Overlay of Airport Sponsor’s

Proposed Project…………………………………………………….. Following Page 65 Figure 4 – Mitigation Parcels…………………………………………………… Following Figure 3

Appendix Appendix A – August 29, 2006 Correspondence from the USACE Appendix B – Responses to Comments on the FEIS Appendix C – NAVAIDS Table Appendix D – Runway Length Analysis Memo Appendix E – Biological Opinion Appendix F – Coastal Zone Consistency Appendix G – Post Final EIS Correspondence from the USFWS and NMFS Appendix H – Memorandum of Agreement Appendix I – Airport Sponsor Mitigation Commitment Table Appendix J – Land Donation Agreement Appendix K – Mitigation Plan Appendix L – Airport Sponsor Assurance Letters Appendix M – September 8, 2006 Correspondence from the Airport Sponsor

3


Record of Decision

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) provides final agency determination and approvals for those federal actions by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) necessary for the proposed relocation of the Panama City-Bay County International Airport (PFN).

The FAA identified its preferred alternative in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) and designates the selected alternative in this ROD. The FAA identified the West Bay Site 8,400 foot Alternative, the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project (Proposed Project), as its preferred alternative in the Final EIS. As summarized here and more fully described in Section 2.2.2 of the Final EIS, the Proposed Project consists of relocation of the existing PFN airport to a new location in Bay County, Florida, called the West Bay Site. The relocation of the airport includes, but is not limited to, construction of a primary air carrier runway 8,400 feet in length, a crosswind runway 5,000 feet in length, airside and landside facilities to support the runway operations (such as taxiways, aprons, a commercial passenger terminal, access roads and parking, fuel storage facilities, an Air Traffic Control Tower, etc.), general aviation and fixed base operator facilities, and navigation aids. See Section 2.2.2 of the Final EIS for a full description of the proposed project.

The proposed project is identified as Phase 1 (initial development area) on Figure 1 of this ROD. The federal actions requested of the FAA are described in detail in Section 3 of this ROD. The FAA’s reasons for selecting the West Bay Site 8,400 foot Alternative for Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approval, required by 40 CFR 1505.2, are described in Section 7 of this ROD. Finally, the FAA’s specific decision and order approving FAA’s federal actions for the project is located in Section 13 of this ROD.

The FAA is selecting and granting approval of a layout plan for the FAA’s preferred alternative, the West Bay Site 8,400 foot Alternative, with the conditions noted in Section 12 of this ROD. The FAA is also approving related agency actions necessary to support the FAA’s preferred alternative except for decisions concerning federal funding, transfer of the Airport Sponsor’s grant obligations to the relocated airport, decommissioning (closing) of aviation facilities at the Existing Site, and release for disposal of the Existing Site for non-aeronautical use.

This ROD completes the FAA’s thorough and objective environmental decision-making process, including FAA’s public disclosure and review by the FAA decisionmaker of the analysis of impacts described in the May 2006 Proposed Relocation of the Panama City-Bay County International Airport Final EIS. This ROD has been prepared and issued by the FAA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. Section 4321, et seq.], the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508] and FAA directives [Order 1050.1E and Order 5050.4A1]. The ROD is also used to demonstrate and document the FAA’s compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements and environmental, programmatic, and related statutes and regulations that apply to FAA decisions and actions on proposed airport projects.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was a cooperating agency in preparing this EIS because the proposed relocation project requires a permit to fill wetlands from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. During the preparation of the Draft and Final EIS, the FAA worked closely with the USACE, the cooperating agency. The USACE has informed the FAA that the FAA’s selected alternative is considered the USACE least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. See Appendix A of this ROD.

1 The Final EIS was substantially complete prior to the final issuance of FAA Order 5050.4B in April 2006. Therefore, preparation of the Final EIS was undertaken in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A.

4

http:5050.4A


Record of Decision

In addition, the FAA coordinated extensively with other federal, state, local, and tribal entities throughout the EIS process, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Florida Division of Historic Resources, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Bay County, and local municipalities. The FAA also coordinated with other interest groups and the general public to facilitate consideration of key issues and an understanding of the proposed actions. Section 8 of this ROD describes in detail the FAA’s tribal, public, and agency coordination activities for this project. Through the FAA’s coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, public individuals, and public organizations, comments were solicited on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments were provided in the Final EIS. Comments were solicited on the Final EIS because new and additional information regarding redevelopment of the Existing Site became available after FAA’s publication of the Draft EIS. Responses to these comments are included in Appendix B of this ROD.

The FAA is responsible for the preparation and content of the Final EIS and this ROD. The FAA is also responsible for reviewing and independently verifying the accuracy of any environmental information provided by outside entities. In developing the Final EIS, the FAA relied on certain information prepared by outside sources as permitted by 40 CFR 1506.5. In keeping with its oversight responsibility, the FAA consistently exercised control over the scope, content, and development of the Final EIS. The FAA selected a Third Party Contractor (TPC) to assist in the preparation of the Final EIS. The FAA also utilized its own resources, as well as the resources of the TPC, to independently evaluate any environmental information and other submissions provided by the Panama City-Bay County International Airport and Industrial District (Airport Sponsor) or other entities.

The FAA is responsible for the accuracy of all information within the EIS and ROD. The FAA/TPC independently and extensively reviewed the Airport Sponsor-provided information utilized in the EIS. The FAA believes that the degree of supervision that it exercised over the TPC, and its participation in the preparation of the EIS, fully maintained the integrity and objectivity of the EIS and ROD.

5

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

GENERAL

USE

GENERAL

USE

GENERAL

USE

GENERAL

USE

GENERAL

USE

GEN.

USE

AVIATION

USE

GENERAL USE

AVIATION

USE

AVIATION USE

AVIATION

USE

AVIATION

USEAVIATION USE

AV. USE

WWTP

ESU LARENEG

LARENEG

ESU

.NEG

ESU

AG ERUTUF

TNEMPOLEVED

16L-34R (8400' X 150'; 12000' x 150' ULT.)

12-3

0005( '

001 x )'

5000'

"BRL"

16R-34L (8400' X 150') ULTIMATE

Gulf of Mexico

DEVELOPMENT LIMIT - 1,340.5 ACRES

(ASSUMES 8,400 FT PRIMARY RUNWAY AND ACCESS ROAD)

Phase 1

RENTAL CAR SERVICE AREA

SECURED ACCESS ROAD

¹ GA ACCESS

ROAD

MAIN ACCESS ROAD

CR 388

Source: Adapted from figure provided by Airport Sponsor (2004)

AREA SHOWN Legend Figure 1

Walton

County Washington Initial Development Area Airport County

"Initial Airfield/Vehicular Pavements Land Use Map 20)Initial Planned Facilities

98 County tBay

t Panama City-Bay Countyu West Bay 231 Potential Future Airfield Facilities u!(

Lynn Haven International Airport EIS Calhoun (! County Ultimate Development !( Panama City-Bay County

Panama City Beach l International Aiport

! Ultimate General Use (

(Panama City !Callaway

Reserved for Future Infrastructure Gulf

Tyndall AFB l County

98tu 0 0.5 10.25 !(

Mexico Beach Mile


Record of Decision

2.0 BACKGROUND

Airport History and Development Aviation facilities in Panama City began as a private field with grass landing strips. The property was donated to the local Chamber of Commerce in 1932 for the purpose of developing a public airport. With the completion of facility improvements in 1938, the airport was renamed Fannin Field or Panama City-Bay County Airport as it was more commonly called. The airport was used as a Civil Air Patrol facility throughout World War II. In 1943, the Florida legislature approved formation of an airport authority, named the Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial District. Commercial operations began in 1948 and have continued without interruption.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the airport had a number of airlines serving the facility with jet aircraft. The service was mainly point-to-point and only a few destinations were served, resulting in relatively low overall passenger enplanements (60,000 to 80,000 annually). Passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 significantly enhanced competition in the airline industry and changed the pattern of service provided to markets such as Panama City. Deregulation enabled airlines to gain more effective control of their operations and led to the establishment of several new airlines, emergence of regional/commuter airlines, creation of the hub-and-spoke system, and increased competition between airlines. This resulted in significant increases in passenger activity for both local and national markets. As a result, PFN’s total annual passenger enplanements exceeded 100,000 by 1988.

In 1992, the airport was designated an international airport and renamed the Panama City-Bay County International Airport (PFN). The international designation indicates that the airport can support international arrivals through customs and immigration. Associated with the designation of the airport as an international facility, on-call U.S. Customs and immigration services were made available through the use of the local port facilities.

The airport experienced steady growth during the 1990s as major carriers and their affiliated regional airline partners expanded commercial air service at the airport including use of mainline jet aircraft. Passenger enplanements grew to more than 150,000 annually. The airport completed a major development program in 1996 that included the replacement of the existing commercial terminal building.

In recent years, airlines and their affiliate carriers have modified services offered at PFN in response to changing markets for air service, changes to the fleet mix, including the emergence of the regional jet, and other aviation industry related conditions. While experiencing continued growth in passenger volumes, the level of operational activity at the airport has decreased since 1998, although the recent data indicates fluctuations in operations. Part of the decrease in operations can be explained by the strength of the passenger market resulting in the introduction of larger capacity aircraft. The regional affiliate airlines have begun to replace their fleet of smaller turbo-prop aircraft (like the 30-seat Embraer EMB-120) with aircraft that have greater seating capacity. Examples include the 50-seat Bombardier CRJ-200 and the 64-seat ATR 72. This has allowed airlines to meet growth in passenger demand without adding flights.

With the completion of the Airport Master Plan Update in 1996, the Airport Sponsor began considering how to address the future needs at PFN. The Master Plan Update Narrative identified extending both runway length and runway safety areas (RSAs) among the future needs.2 Accordingly, the Airport Sponsor initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider alternatives for a runway extension at the Existing Site. The EA was intended to address the FAA design standards for the RSAs as well as additional runway length to take advantage of existing and future aviation opportunities. Based on the analyses conducted, the Airport Sponsor’s

2 Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial District. Airport Master Plan Update; Volume II: Master Plan Update Narrative, November 1996.

6


Record of Decision

previous proposal to extend the runway at the existing airport (Runway 14-32) would have resulted in significant adverse environmental impacts to Goose Bayou. Due to the magnitude of the impacts and the concerns expressed by state agencies over whether the impacts could be mitigated, the Airport Sponsor terminated the EA process in 1998.

The Proposed Project During the analyses conducted for the EA, a concept was discussed regarding the possible relocation of the airport to a new site. As a part of building a support base of community leaders for the concept of a relocated airport, the possibility of land donation further advanced the relocation concept. The timing and potential cost savings enabled the Airport Sponsor and Bay County to begin seriously considering the benefits of providing for the airport’s future growth on a new site where compatible land uses could be planned.

Based on the results of the EA, the Airport Sponsor initiated the Feasibility Study for Panama City–Bay County International Airport3 to consider other alternatives to address future needs. In addition to the consideration of onsite improvements at the Existing Site, the Feasibility Study evaluated the potential for relocating the airport to avoid the geographical constraints at the Existing Site. Among the issues identified were:

• Lack of land for airfield expansion or ancillary development

• Incompatible land uses surrounding the Existing Site

• Conflicts with Tyndall Air Force Base due to airspace constraints

• Constraints of Goose Bayou to the northwest and SR 390 to the southeast

• Recent damage to airfield facilities from storm surges that had flooded the airport during hurricanes and other severe storms

• Anticipated growth in the region both in terms of population and potential air service

The recommendation of the Feasibility Study was to relocate the existing and future operations of PFN to a new site. The Executive Summary of the Feasibility Study is included in Appendix C of the Final EIS.

Following the recommendations of the Feasibility Study, the Airport Sponsor conducted the Site Selection Study4 to identify preliminary locations for a new airport. The study area was limited to Bay County by the Airport Sponsor. The majority of the Airport’s passengers in the primary market area come from, or are destined to, Bay County. See Section 1.6 of the Final EIS. The Airport Sponsor’s site selection process identified sites in Bay County that would avoid the constraints identified in the Feasibility Study.

The Airport Sponsor is the project sponsor, owner, and operator of the Existing Site. The Airport Sponsor is proposing to relocate the existing airport to a new site in Bay County. The St. Joe Company currently owns the Airport Sponsor’s proposed new airport site and proposes to donate the site to the Airport Sponsor. In addition, the St. Joe Company proposes to make additional acreage available for preservation and restoration under a conservation easement for any wetland and habitat mitigation that may be required for the proposed development of a new airport. Under the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project, the Existing Site facilities are to be decommissioned, and all facilities and operations at the Existing Site will be replaced at and/or relocated to the proposed site. To effectuate relocation of the airport, FAA would need to take separate federal actions, including transfer of the Airport Sponsor’s federal grant obligations to the relocated airport, decommissioning of the Existing Site facilities and release for disposal of the Existing Site for

3 Feasibility Study for Panama City–Bay County International Airport, Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation, July 2000. 4 Panama City-Bay County International Airport Site Selection Study, Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation, December 2000.

7


Record of Decision

non-aeronautical use. These actions are referred to throughout this ROD as “release and decommissioning.” None of these release and decommissioning actions can occur until a new airport is constructed and ready to begin operation. Figure 2 of this ROD depicts the Airport Sponsor’s proposed airport relocation site relative to the existing airport site in Bay County.

The Airport Sponsor’s proposed new site would accommodate a proposed airfield layout that has been planned for both short- and long-term aviation needs without being constrained by natural or man-made features. Components of the relocated airport subject to FAA review and approval at this time consist of airfield and terminal facilities, including a primary air carrier runway of 8,400 feet and a general aviation crosswind runway of 5,000 feet, configured in an open V layout. This system would be supported by the necessary ancillary features including parallel and connecting taxiways, terminal area facilities, general aviation facilities, air traffic control and emergency service facilities, lighting, and necessary navigational facilities. These initial development components, identified as Phase 1 on Figure 1 of this ROD, would be commissioned in 2009. 5

Potential for Future Development Beyond the 2018 Timeframe Depending upon aviation growth in the Panama City vicinity and the Airport Sponsor’s long-term needs, the airport’s facilities could be expanded beyond the 2018 timeframe to include an extension of the primary air carrier runway, a second parallel air carrier runway, and additional terminal area and ancillary facilities. The Airport Sponsor’s ultimate development scenario would be accomplished through the phased development of requisite facilities as demand for those facilities emerges. Although the Airport Sponsor’s ultimate development scenario is speculative at this time, potential impacts of the ultimate development of the Airport Sponsor’s proposed site are disclosed in the Final EIS, as possible cumulative impacts, for information purposes only. Should future airport development be proposed to be implemented beyond the 2018 timeframe, further evaluation under NEPA will be required. Inclusion of such information in the Final EIS could be a basis for future NEPA documents. In this manner, the FAA could tier subsequent environmental documents evaluating future airport proposals from the Final EIS in compliance with NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. §§1502.20, 1508.28. Therefore, the Final EIS documented and this ROD renders a decision regarding only the identified airport development that is reasonably foreseeable through 2018.

Redevelopment of the Existing Site In October 2005, while the Final EIS was being prepared, the Airport Sponsor distributed a Request for Proposal to Purchase (RFP) the Existing Site in the event that the FAA should approve a West Bay Site alternative. The RFP solicited proposals for redevelopment of the Existing Site and referenced three conceptual mixed use redevelopment options that were prepared in response to public input received through locally-sponsored public hearings. Issuance of the RFP corresponded with publication of the Background Analysis and Master Planning Report for Redevelopment (Redevelopment Report6). Both the RFP and the Redevelopment Report are available on the Airport Sponsor’s web site (www.pcairport.com) and are included in Appendix V of the Final EIS. Although the Draft EIS described environmental impacts of redevelopment of the existing airport property based on information then available, the Airport Sponsor’s RFP and Redevelopment Report presented several redevelopment scenarios not previously available for FAA review and consideration.

5 The year 2008 was initially analyzed in the EIS because the FAA anticipated 2008 to be the first year of operation for the Proposed Project based on information from the Airport Sponsor. At this time, it appears that a relocated airport would not be operational in 2008 based upon the time needed for design and construction. Despite the anticipated shift in dates by one year for initial service at the new airport, the environmental conditions (both the affected environment and impacts associated with the project) are not expected to change in any material way. Therefore, the FEIS presents an accurate analysis of environmental impacts associated with the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project. The year 2018 remains the future date for purposes of impacts analysis, and would identify impacts approximately ten years after initial operation of the alternatives. 6 The Redevelopment Report is available for review at the FAA’s Orlando Airports District Office and at the Airport Sponsor’s Airport Administration office.

8

http:��1502.20http:1508.28


Record of Decision

As referenced in Section 2.2 of the Final EIS, the Airport Sponsor has prepared three redevelopment options, included in the Redevelopment Report, for the Existing Site in the event that the existing airport is relocated. The RFP for reuse of the Existing Airport indicated that the redevelopment options were conceptual and that parties responding to the RFP need not adopt any of the reuse scenarios contained in the accompanying Redevelopment Report. Thus, it is likely that the scenarios presented in the Redevelopment Report could differ from proposals offered in response to the RFP. Therefore, the Redevelopment Report’s scenarios cannot be relied upon to accurately represent the ultimate redevelopment plan that would be proposed by the purchaser and approved by state and local agencies.

Release and Decommissioning Sale of the existing airport property and redevelopment of the Existing Site are not part of the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project evaluated in the Draft and Final EIS. However, redevelopment of the Existing Site is relevant to the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. This is because redevelopment of the Existing Site is an indirect impact of future FAA action to release and decommission the existing airport, and those future FAA actions would not occur but for a decision to relocate PFN. For this reason, the indirect impacts of release and decommissioning, namely, redevelopment of the Existing Site, were evaluated in the EIS.

As noted earlier, prior to initiation of air service at the relocated airport, the FAA must transfer the Airport Sponsor’s grant obligations to the relocated airport and release and decommission the existing airport. These actions free the Airport Sponsor to sell the property for redevelopment. As a result, FAA has evaluated the impacts of redevelopment in the Draft and Final EIS based on the best information available at the time of each document’s release. These impacts are properly considered in the current EIS as indirect impacts of release and decommissioning. See Sections 2.2.2 and Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS and Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and Chapter 5 of the Final EIS for discussion of redevelopment impacts.

FAA will undertake further NEPA review of impacts associated with the redevelopment of the Existing Site at the time action on release and decommissioning become ripe for decision by FAA.7 At that time, it is anticipated that more reliable information will be available regarding the redevelopment plan that will be presented to local and state agencies for permitting and approval. Even if a more definitive plan for redevelopment has not been presented to state and local agencies with approval authority by the time FAA’s release and decommissioning actions become ripe for decision, FAA will make reasonable assumptions about the site’s reuse to consider the potential impacts of the release and decommissioning decision. In addition to further NEPA evaluation, the FAA will take actions to further coordinate with appropriate federal agencies prior to a decision on release and decommissioning.8 At the present time, FAA has complied with NEPA regarding disclosure of impacts of redevelopment of the Existing Site to the fullest extent practicable by disclosing such impacts based on the best currently available information. The adequacy of environmental review to support the release and decommissioning of the existing airport property will not be ripe for judicial review until there is final agency action approving these actions.

7 While FAA recognizes that release and decommissioning associated with the Existing Site are related to FAA’s decision regarding airport relocation, decisions regarding release and decommissioning are not ripe at this time because the existing airport must continue to operate while the relocated airport is being constructed. The existing airport cannot be released or decommissioned, nor the Airport Sponsor’s Federal grant obligations transferred to the relocated airport until such time as a new airport is constructed and prepared to accept aircraft operations.8 FAA undertook preliminary outreach to appropriate federal agencies after the RFP and Redevelopment Report were issued. See Appendices D, M, and X of the Final EIS and Appendices B, G, and H of this ROD for further documentation of FAA’s outreach to appropriate federal agencies following the Airport Sponsor’s release of the Redevelopment Report and RFP.

9

l

l !

!

!

!

!

!

.

.

.

.

.

.

Tyndall AFB


Callaway

West Bay

Lynn Haven

Panama City

Mexico Beach

Panama City Beach

Bay County

Gulf County

Washington County

Walton County

Calhoun County

Jackson County

Franklin County

¹

0 5 10 Miles

Panama City-Bay County International Airport EIS

Figure 2

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

l

l l

l l

l §̈¦10

§̈¦65

Ft. Walton Beach

Dothan

Pensacola

Tallahassee

Panama City

Apalachicola

AREA MAP

Gulf of Mexico

Alabama

Georgia

tu231

tu98

tu98

")22

")20

")77

")79

")388

Legend

Airport Location Map Military Facilities

Commercial Airports

!. Cities and Towns

Highways

Other Roads

Urban Areas

Counties

l l

Proposed Airport Relocation Site


Record of Decision

3.0 REQUESTED FEDERAL ACTIONS AND APPROVALS

The Airport Sponsor has proposed a specific project to meet what it has identified as the existing and future needs of the Panama City–Bay County International Airport. The specific actions associated with the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project, which are required for the FAA to respond to the Airport Sponsor’s requests, are included in Section 2.6 of the Final EIS and identified below.

3.1 Federal Actions and Approvals

• FAA approval of an ALP for the initial development components listed in Section 2.2.2 of the Final EIS.

• FAA consideration and processing of an application for federal funding for those development items qualifying under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. § 47107, and/or approval to use Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990, 49 U.S.C. § 40117, and its implementing regulations under 14 CFR Part 158.9

• FAA design, development, approval, and implementation of new flight procedures,

including airspace determinations, visual and instrument procedures, missed approach

procedures, obstructions, and arrival and departure procedures.

• FAA site selection, purchase, installation, and flight-checking of all necessary navigation

aids and lighting systems to support the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project.

• Decommissioning of aviation facilities and release for disposal of the Existing Site for

non-aeronautical use.

• Transfer of federal grant obligations from existing airport site to relocated airport.

A summary of the purposes, footprint descriptions, and siting criteria of specific equipment and structures to be installed by the FAA is included in Appendix C of this ROD. Assessment of the impacts of construction, maintenance, and operation of this equipment and these structures is included as part of the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project that is the subject of the Final EIS.

Although decommissioning of aviation facilities and release for disposal of the Existing Site for non-aeronautical use, as well as transfer of federal grant obligations to the relocated airport, are actions requested of FAA in conjunction with the proposed project, a decision on this request is not ripe at this time. Thus, future federal action would be necessary to effectuate these requested actions. At that time, as explained in Section 2 of this ROD, FAA will undertake further NEPA review of the indirect impacts of release and decommissioning the Existing Site, namely, redevelopment and reuse of the site.

3.2 List of Federal and State Permits and Approvals

The following actions are required by federal agencies (other than the FAA) and state and local agencies for implementation of the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project:

• Issuance of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit, including approval of the

mitigation plan by the USACE.

9 Environmental requirements for Airport Improvement Act (AIP) funding are similar to other applicable environmental review requirements and so, in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A, paragraph 94, are addressed as part of the Final EIS and ROD for the ALP. These determinations are a prerequisite to funding and are relied upon in the future for purposes of funding decisions but do not complete the determinations that are necessary for funding. The decision to approve AIP funding relies in part upon the determinations contained in this ROD. Any PFC decision will rely upon the Final EIS and this ROD approving the ALP.

10

http:5050.4A


Record of Decision

• Completion of Ecosystem Team Permitting (ETP) process. In October 2005, FDEP issued a Notice of Intent to issue an Ecosystem Management Agreement and related permits for the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project. (See Appendix U of the Final EIS)

• CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from FDEP through the ETP process. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Section 402 of the

CWA) from FDEP prior to construction. • Public Drinking Water Facility Construction Permit, Wastewater Collection/

Transmission System Construction Permit, Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit, Industrial Waste Permit, and Air Pollution Permit from FDEP.

• Consumptive Use permit from the Northwest Florida Water Management District. • Applicable permits from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to

address impacts to state-listed species. • Formal site approval from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Aviation

Office. • FDOT Aviation Office issuance of license upon completion of construction. • Approval of non-federal funds for construction of Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project.

The future developer selected by the Airport Sponsor for redevelopment of the Existing Site would be responsible for preparing applications for all required federal, state, and local permits and approvals, including the Development of Regional Impact/Application for Development Approval (Section 380.06, F.S.).

11


Record of Decision

4.0 AVIATION FORECASTS

In the preparation of an EIS, the FAA determines the most appropriate set of forecasts to use that reflect current data and trends and provide the best basis for the assessment of potential environmental effects. The Airport Sponsor prepared forecasts that were included in the 2000 Feasibility Study, which provided a review of the existing airport facilities; an overview of historical service; and forecasts of enplanements, fleet mix, and operations. The forecast section presented in the Feasibility Study summarized activity over the preceding decade as a basis for the forecasts. Because of the events of September 11, 200110 and time that elapsed since the forecasts were prepared for the Feasibility Study, and as a part of the ongoing planning process, the Airport Sponsor prepared the Updated Forecasts and provided them to the FAA in January 2004. According to the Airport Sponsor, the Updated Forecasts reflect an evaluation of the potential for an airport located at the Airport Sponsor’s proposed site to serve (1) a larger percentage of travelers in the overall air service area and (2) potential transatlantic charter service.

During the same period, the FAA prepared the 2003 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), released in February 2004, for PFN. The FAA prepares a TAF each year for each towered airport in the United States. The TAF is prepared by FAA staff using industry-standard methodology including statistical analysis of historical trends, review of recent trends in airline service, and assumptions regarding future developments in the airline industry. The FAA TAF represents the official FAA outlook for each towered airport, and is the standard by which any independently-developed airport forecast is measured.

The FAA reviewed the forecasts prepared for the Feasibility Study and the Updated Forecasts, and compared those forecasts with the FAA’s 2003 TAF. The FAA determined that the 2003 TAF would be used as the basis for the EIS analysis. The 2003 TAF was the FAA’s best projection of potential future activity levels at the time the analysis was conducted for the Draft EIS. In addition the Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts were used in the EIS to disclose the full range of potential environmental impacts.

Table 1 of this ROD and Table 1-3 of the Final EIS provides a comparison of the forecasts of passenger enplanements and aircraft operations presented in the 2003 FAA TAF and the Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts. As noted previously, the timeframe for the analyses in the Final EIS is 2008-2018. As shown in Table 1 of this ROD and Table 1-3 of the Final EIS, the 2003 FAA TAF projects 206,301 enplaned passengers in 2008, and 263,406 enplaned passengers in 2018. In the Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts, enplanements for the Proposed Project are projected to increase to 276,327 in 2008 and 455,392 in 2018.

10 The events of September 11, 2001, along with a general downturn in the nation’s economy, resulted in reductions in air travel nationwide. Generally, the number of air carrier operations on a national level is now at or near the number of operations just prior to September 2001.

12


Record of Decision

Table 1 Comparison of Airport Sponsor’s Forecasts and 2003 FAA TAF for Passenger Enplanements And Total

Operations for PFN

Year Passenger Enplanements Total Operations

2003 TAF(a)

Updated Forecasts(b)

Percent Difference(c)

2003 TAF(a)



2008 206,301 276,327 33.9% 88,467 96,316 8.9%

2013 234,853 330,040 40.5% 94,872 104,282 9.9%

2018 263,406 455,392 72.9% 101,275 115,073 13.6%

(a) The FAA TAF numbers are for Fiscal Years (FY) ending on September 30 of the stated year (e.g., FY 2003 covers the period from October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2003). The 2003 FAA TAF enplanement numbers do not include non-revenue passengers, which typically account for about 5 percent of the total annual enplanements at PFN, according to the Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial District. Non-revenue passengers are included in the Updated Forecasts. Non-revenue passengers include airline employees, officers and directors, travel agents, and tour conductors traveling at no or reduced fare remuneration. Infants flying at reduced fare remuneration and not using a seat are also non-revenue passengers. (b) The Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts are presented on a calendar year basis and document projected enplanements and operations for the years 2008, 2013, and 2018 within the EIS planning horizon. (c) Some portion of the percent difference in enplanements is attributable to the fact that the Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts include non-revenue passengers and the FAA’s 2003 TAF does not, and that both enplanements and operations for the TAF are presented in fiscal years and the Updated Forecasts are presented in calendar years. Most of the percent difference is attributable to the Airport Sponsor’s consideration that an airport located at the proposed site would serve a higher percentage of the overall passengers in the primary and secondary commercial service areas due to its proximity to identified regional leisure destinations, improved overall airport access, and the potential for international charter flights by 2018. Sources: Ricondo and Associates, Inc., 2004; FAA 2003 Terminal Area Forecast for PFN; Panama City–Bay County International Airport – Activity Forecasts, HNTB Corporation, January 2004.

The FAA considers locally developed forecasts to be consistent with the TAF if the forecast differs by less than 10 percent in the five year forecast period and 15 percent in the ten year period, and the forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project.11 Based on the comparisons presented in Table 1 of this ROD and in Table 1-3 of the Final EIS, the differences in forecast operations are less than 10 percent between the Updated Forecasts and the 2003 FAA TAF in the five year forecast period and less than 15 percent in the 10 year forecast period, with a difference of 13.6 percent in 2018.

Projections of air carrier and air taxi operations in the forecasts vary over the period, with variations attributed to the forecast numbers of enplaned passengers along with different assumptions in the average number of seats per departure and/or average passenger load factors. The percentage difference between the numbers of commercial operations in the Updated Forecasts is 10.9 percent higher in 2008 and 8.3 percent higher in 2013 than those in the FAA TAF. The difference then increases to 19.1 percent in 2018. See Table 1-4 in the Final EIS.

The FAA issued the 2005 TAF for PFN in February 2006, following publication of the Draft EIS. The 2005 FAA TAF shows higher activity levels (for 2008, 2013, and 2018) than presented in the 2003 FAA TAF that was used for the Final EIS, but lower levels than shown in the Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts. See Table 2 of this ROD and Table 1-5 of the Final EIS for a comparison of the 2003 and 2005 FAA TAF data. Table 3 of this ROD and Table 1-6 of the Final EIS provide a comparison of the 2005

11 Memorandum, “INFORMATION: Revision to Guidance on Review and Approval of Aviation Forecasts”, Federal Aviation Administration, Director of Airport Planning and Programming, APP-1, December 23, 2004.

13


Record of Decision

FAA TAF with the Airport Sponsor’s forecasts. The higher level of activity in the 2005 FAA TAF indicates that there is potential for higher aviation demand levels at PFN in future years.12 The Updated Forecasts prepared by the Airport Sponsor consider that an airport at the proposed site would attract more traffic because of its proximity to regional leisure destinations and improved overall airport access. They also reflect the potential for transatlantic charter service by 2018 that a longer runway of 8,400 feet would be able to serve.

As shown in Table 3 of this ROD and Table 1-6 of the Final EIS, the Updated Forecasts and the 2005 FAA TAF are reasonably consistent in terms of operations. The Updated Forecasts is considered to reflect the high range of potential activity at PFN. To ensure that the analyses presented in the Final EIS fully disclose the range of potential environmental consequences, both the 2003 FAA TAF and the Updated Forecasts were used to evaluate the potential effects of the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project and the alternatives.

Table 2 Comparison of 2003 and 2005 FAA TAF for Passenger Enplanements

And Total Operations for PFN


2003 TAF

2005 TAF

Percent Difference

2003 TAF

2005 TAF

Percent Difference

2008 206,301 209,920 1.8% 88,467 94,327 6.6%

2013 234,853 246,605 5.0% 94,872 101,196 6.7%

2018 263,406 289,703 9.9% 101,275 107,787 6.4% Source: FAA 2003 and 2005 Terminal Area Forecasts for PFN, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2006.

12 Although the 2003 TAF is the FAA’s best projection of aviation activity for purposes of this EIS, all forecasts are subject to a degree of uncertainty. The FAA conducts an annual review of the accuracy of prior TAFs based on actual activity. A recent annual review indicated that the average forecast error in the TAF for a 10-year period was 9 percent for passenger activity and 3 percent for aircraft activity. FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2005-2016, USDOT, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, p. VIII-4, March 2005.

14


Record of Decision

Table 3 Comparison of Airport Sponsor’s Forecasts and 2005 FAA TAF Forecasts for Passenger

Enplanements And Total Operations for PFN


2005 TAF(a)



2005 TAF(a)



2008 209,920 276,327 31.6% 94,327 96,316 2.1%

2013 246,605 330,040 33.8% 101,196 104,282 3.0% 2018 289,703 455,392 57.2% 107,787 115,073 6.8%

(a) The FAA TAF numbers are for fiscal years ending on September 30 of the stated year (e.g., FY 2005 covers the period from October 1, 2004, to September 30, 2005). (b) The Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts are presented on a calendar year basis and document projected numbers of operations for the years 2008, 2013, and 2018 within the EIS planning horizon. (c) Percent difference between the FAA’s 2005 TAF and the Airport Sponsor’s Updated Forecasts in future years. Some portion of the percent difference is attributable to the fact that the FAA TAF is presented in fiscal years and the Updated Forecasts are presented in calendar years. The most significant portion of the percent difference is attributable to the Airport Sponsor’s consideration that an airport located at the proposed site would attract more traffic due to its proximity to identified regional leisure destinations, improved overall airport access, and the potential for international charter flights by 2018. Sources: Ricondo and Associates, Inc., 2006; FAA 2005 Terminal Area Forecast for PFN; Panama City–Bay County International Airport – Activity Forecasts, HNTB Corporation, January 2004.

15


Record of Decision

5.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

5.1 Purpose

CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA require that the federal agency preparing an EIS include in that document a statement identifying the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing alternatives, including the proposed action (40 CFR 1502.13). The FAA does not initiate airport development projects. Rather, airport improvements are initiated by, and remain the ultimate responsibility of, individual airport sponsors. Nevertheless, in the fulfillment of its NEPA obligations for airport improvement proposals, the FAA makes its own determination of the purpose and need for the proposed action while also being particularly mindful of an airport sponsor’s overall goals.

The FAA is charged with implementation of federal policies under its statutory authorities. It is within the framework of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C. §§ 47101-47131 (as amended), that the FAA is responding to the Airport Sponsor’s proposal to relocate the existing airport to West Bay. The FAA, through its own planning process, has refined and expanded the role of airports as components of the national aviation system. The FAA has clearly recognized the need to plan for a system of airports to meet demand for aviation facilities as well as to address a number of national needs and priorities. Development of aviation facilities for Panama City, whether at the current site or elsewhere in the Panama City region, is evaluated using the criteria set forth in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and FAA’s own statutory authorities.13

Thus, the FAA’s purpose for evaluating this proposal includes fulfilling the following statutory considerations and NPIAS goals:

(1) The policy of the United States relative to airport improvement includes making certain that the safe operation of airports and the airway system remains the highest priority and that aviation facilities be constructed and operated to minimize current and projected noise impacts on nearby communities. See 49 U.S.C. § 47101 (a)(1), (2).

(2) 49 U.S.C. § 47101 (c) directs the FAA that “It is in the public interest to recognize the effects of airport capacity expansion projects on aircraft noise. Efforts to increase capacity through any means can have an impact on surrounding communities. Non-compatible land uses around airports must be reduced and efforts to mitigate noise must be given a high priority.”

(3) According to 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d)(1), federal policy includes “assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce.”

(4) Another important matter “in the public interest” is “preventing deterioration in established safety procedures.” 49 U.S.C. § 40101(a)(3).

(5) The NPIAS goals of greatest relevance here include: • Airports should be safe and efficient, located at optimum sites, and developed

and maintained to appropriate standards. • Airports should be flexible and expandable, able to meet increased demand and

to accommodate new aircraft types.

13 At the federal level, the FAA identifies airports as part of the NPIAS pursuant to FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS identifies existing and proposed airports that are significant to national air transportation and estimates the infrastructure development necessary to meet the needs of all segments of civil aviation. The NPIAS provides standardized criteria and procedures by which to evaluate airport roles as well as their effectiveness and eligibility for federal airport grants on a national level.

16

http:5090.3C


Record of Decision

• Airports should be permanent, with assurances that they will remain open for aeronautical use over the long-term.

• Airports should be compatible with surrounding communities, maintaining a balance between the needs of aviation and the requirements of residents of neighboring areas.

• The airport system should support national objectives for defense, emergency readiness, and postal delivery.

5.2 Need

FAA Needs As indicated above, the FAA has a statutory responsibility to address issues of safety and efficiency. The following needs would be addressed by expanding or relocating the existing airport:

• Ensure that the airport meets FAA design standards and is operated in a safe and efficient manner.

Considerations under this specific need include federal policy outlined at 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d)(1) to assign, maintain, and enhance safety as one of the highest priorities in air commerce. The existing Runway Safety Areas (RSA) at PFN for Runway 14-32 do not meet FAA standards. Providing standard RSAs would require further restriction of the existing runway length or extension of the RSAs. Another consideration under this specific need is the potential for conflicts with Tyndall AFB. The proximity of the military airfield to PFN presents potential airspace conflicts that are expected to increase with additional growth and development at the airport, including increases in operations and the potential introduction of larger aircraft. As stated in 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d)(4), federal responsibility includes “controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of these operations.” • Address aviation demand for the Panama City-Bay County air service area. Under this specific need, the FAA has considered its duty to take measures to ensure the “availability of a variety of adequate, economic, efficient, and low-priced services….” (See 49 U.S.C. § 40101(a)(4)). Existing geographic constraints at the Existing Site, including Goose Bayou to the north and residential communities to the east, south and west limit the Airport Sponsor’s ability to expand the existing facilities and services.

• Address the effects of PFN airport expansion related to noise and land use compatibility. According to 49 U.S.C. § 47101(c), the FAA recognizes that it is in the public interest to recognize the effects of airport capacity expansion projects on aircraft noise. Incompatible land uses around airports must be reduced and efforts to mitigate noise in areas considered by the FAA to be exposed to significant aircraft noise must be given a high priority. The Existing Site is surrounded on three sides by residential uses, which may be affected by airport noise under certain development scenarios.

• Address the need identified by the FAA for adequate runway length to accommodate existing and projected aviation demand

The FAA’s review of existing facilities at PFN discloses a need for additional runway length at PFN to accommodate projected demand. According to the FAA’s independent review of runway length requirements, an initial runway length of 6,800 feet would accommodate the regional jet and narrow-body jet aircraft operating in those markets that may receive non-stop service from Panama City during the Final EIS planning period through 2018. See Appendix D of the ROD for the runway length analysis memo.

17


Record of Decision

Airport Sponsor Purpose and Need The Airport Sponsor’s purpose and need for the Proposed Project is to develop aviation facilities that meet FAA safety and design standards, operate and grow the airport without geographic constraints, prepare for future opportunities to expand air carrier service, and plan future aviation development that is compatible with local and regional planning objectives. The purposes and needs of the FAA and Airport Sponsor coincide except in the area of economic goals and forecast aviation demand.

As discussed above, the FAA’s review of existing facilities at PFN discloses a need for a primary air carrier runway 6,800 feet in length. Based upon the 2003 FAA TAF and independent runway analysis, the FAA determined that a runway of this length would be sufficient through the planning period (2018). In the FAA’s view, such a runway would accommodate the regional jet and narrow body jet aircraft operating in those markets that may receive non-stop service from Panama City during the planning period. Yet based upon its more optimistic Updated Forecasts, the Airport Sponsor has proposed an initial length of 8,400 feet for the primary runway. The Airport Sponsor considers this longer runway necessary to accommodate potential wide-body aircraft (Boeing 767-200ER) and non-stop charter service operations between London, Manchester and Panama City by 2018. The Airport Sponsor has indicated that a longer runway is needed to remain competitive by attracting new air carrier service to Bay County from other airports, increasing the potential for international charter operations, and allowing large military transports to use the airport.

18


Record of Decision

6.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(a)) require the FAA to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives,” while 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(B) requires, as a condition to receiving federal funds, an analysis of “possible and prudent” alternatives for a proposed action when significant impacts would occur. With those standards in mind, the FAA did not evaluate alternatives in detail if they did not substantially meet the purpose and need objectives described in Section 2.5 of the Final EIS.

The alternatives analysis used in the Final EIS employed a two-tier evaluation and screening process formulated to concentrate on the purpose and need for the West Bay Site 8,400 foot Alternative (Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project) and the reasonableness of the various identified alternatives. Alternatives that did not substantially meet the purpose and need for the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project were eliminated from further consideration under the first level screening. The remaining alternatives were then assessed under the second level screening, which focused on quantifying impacts to the natural and human environments to define reasonableness, prudence, viability, and practicability of the alternatives. At the conclusion of the second level of evaluation and screening, those alternatives that remained were subject to detailed analysis in subsequent chapters of the Final EIS.

The alternatives considered in the Final EIS included the following:

• No-Action Alternative • Other Modes of Transportation and Telecommunication • Use of Other Airports (including commercial and general aviation airports) • Joint Use of Tyndall Air Force Base • Separate Commercial and General Aviation Facilities • Airport Relocation Sites (West Bay Site, Callaway Site, and East Bay/West Gulf Site) • Existing Site Alternatives (Extend Runway 14-32 to 6,800 Feet; Extend Runway 14-32 to

8,400 Feet; Extend Runway 14-32 with Declared Distances; Extend Runway 14-32 with Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS Scenario 1); Extend Runway 14-32 to 6,800 Feet (EMAS Scenario 2); Extend Runway 14-32 to 6,800 Feet (EMAS Scenario 3); Extend Runway 5-23 to 6,800 Feet; and Extend Runway 5-23 to 8,400 Feet)

6.1 Level 1 Screening

The FAA screening criteria for the first level of alternatives analysis relate directly to the federal purpose and need for the proposed action as identified in Section 2.5 of the Final EIS. To satisfy these criteria, an alternative was required to meet FAA safety and design standards, provide for compatibility with regional airspace and utilization, and provide for aviation demand for the defined market area.

6.1.1 Meet FAA Safety and Design Standards Each alternative was analyzed to determine whether it met federal airport design standards, including those standards relative to runway safety area (RSA) and runway object free area dimensions, wind coverage, airfield geometry, and location relative to wildlife attractants. Each alternative was compared to the following federal standards:

FAA Airport Design Standards, Airfield Configuration, and Orientation — The FAA has identified specific design standards for safe and efficient airport operations.14 The alternatives were reviewed for dimensions of runways and safety areas, runway separation, and wind

14 Listed in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 7, October 1, 2002.

19


Record of Decision

orientation. The alternative configuration must allow for 95 percent or greater wind coverage, standard separations between runways and adjacent taxiways, provide for Airport Sponsor control of Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) conforming to required dimensional standards, and conform to design criteria for RSAs based on aircraft design group, object free areas (OFAs), and other related airfield components.

Wildlife Attractants — FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33A15 provides guidance regarding the placement of new airport development projects pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants. Land uses known to threaten aviation safety include putrescible waste disposal operations and wastewater treatment facilities. The AC recommends minimum distances from these land uses to a proposed runway (a distance of 10,000 feet from an airport’s aircraft movement areas and a distance of five statute miles from approach or departure airspace).

The AC also addresses wetlands and notes that, where practicable, new airports should be sited using the separations identified in the siting criteria of this AC. The FAA considered design modification that would avoid or minimize wetland impacts. However, the project area and surrounding areas are characterized by wetlands and complete avoidance and minimization was not feasible. For the Level 1 analysis, alternatives were evaluated in relation to nearby landfills or similar facilities, such as incinerators, that could attract birds.

6.1.2 Provide for Demand within the Market Area The existing Panama City-Bay County International Airport is located in Bay County, which comprises the majority of the air service area, as discussed in Section 1.6 of the Final EIS. To serve the air service area, an alternative should be located within a reasonable commute distance and commute time from the primary concentration of demand within the market. The FAA recommends that aviation services be provided within a 20-mile travel distance of the primary concentration of traveler demand. On average, this is a 30-minute ground travel time. As noted in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS, 87 percent of the passengers surveyed at PFN in December 1999 came from Bay County. This provides strong support for the location of a potential airport facility within a 30-minute drive of Bay County, Panama City, Lynn Haven, and Panama City Beach. These areas comprise the highest concentration of population in the County. The highest concentrations of population growth in the air service area are occurring in west Bay County and south Walton County.

To meet this evaluation criterion, an alternative would have to be located within a 30-minute drive time of the primary concentration of demand (identified as Bay County, Panama City, Lynn Haven, and Panama City Beach) and include a primary runway of at least 6,800 feet and the required airside and landside facilities to support the 2003 FAA TAF and the Airport Sponsor’s forecasted activity levels for 2008 and 2018. See Section 4 of this ROD and Section 1.7 of the Final EIS.

6.1.3 Compatibility with Airspace Configuration and Utilization In order to further separate civilian and military operations and to reduce the potential for conflicts between arrival and departure routes to the commercial service airport and the military bases, the airspace criterion was developed. Three separate factors were considered: the proximity of the airfield of each alternative to other airfields, primarily Tyndall AFB; the potential effects of the controlled airspace associated with each alternative on Special Use Airspace (SUA); and the potential for conflicts between the routes for each alternative and routes to and from Tyndall AFB and other military facilities. See Figure 1-4 of the Final EIS. An alternative was not carried forward to Level 2 analysis if it did not satisfy all three of the airspace factors.

The first airspace factor was based on whether the distance between Tyndall AFB and the site of the alternative would be greater than, less than, or equal to the distance between Tyndall AFB and PFN. The second airspace factor was based on the effects of the required controlled airspace for

15 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, July 27, 2004.

20


Record of Decision

the alternative on SUA in the area. PFN is located in an area surrounded by SUA. The third airspace factor was based on potential conflicts between arrival and departure routes for the alternative and the arrival and departure routes from Tyndall AFB.

6.1.4 Level 1 Findings Based on the Level 1 evaluation discussed in the FEIS and described above, the following alternatives did not meet the Level 1 criteria or the purpose and need, and were not, therefore, carried forward to the Level 2 evaluation:

• Other Modes of Transportation and Telecommunication – does not provide for demand within the market area

• Use of Other Airports – is not compatible with airspace configuration/utilization and does not provide for demand within the market area

• Joint Use of Tyndall Air Force Base – does not meet the FAA’s safety and design criteria, is not compatible with airspace configuration/utilization, and does not provide for demand within the market area

• Separate Commercial and General Aviation Facilities – is not compatible with airspace configuration/utilization

• Callaway Relocation Site – is not compatible with airspace configuration/utilization • East Bay/West Gulf Relocation Site – is not compatible with airspace

configuration/utilization and does not provide for demand within the market area

The No-Action Alternative also did not meet the Level 1 evaluation, but was nevertheless carried forward for detailed analysis to serve as a baseline against which all other alternatives could be compared. See 40 CFR 1502.14(d).

Table 3-2 of the Final EIS provides a summary for those alternatives reviewed in the Level 1 analysis, and indicates which alternatives met the Level 1 criteria. Alternatives meeting the Level 1 criteria were carried forward for further analysis under the Level 2 screening process.

6.2 Level 2 Screening

The FAA Level 2 screening process further refined the evaluation of alternatives through the application of criteria specific to both natural and community environments affected by each alternative. The FAA Level 2 screening criteria were developed in response to federal and state agency input, preliminary review of environmental impacts, and the FAA purpose and need as described in Section 2.5.1 of the Final EIS.

The consideration of impacts to the natural environment included impacts to marine resources; specifically Class II Waters of the State of Florida, seagrass habitat, and State sovereign submerged lands. The consideration of community impacts included residential and business relocations, the availability of comparable relocation housing, the loss of property tax revenue for Bay County, and effects on public schools and emergency services. Alternatives that did not meet the criteria for impacts to the natural and community environments were not carried forward for detailed analysis in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS.

6.2.1 Impacts to the Natural Environment Each alternative carried forward to the Level 2 analysis was reviewed to determine its direct impact to marine resources, including seagrass and marine habitat. Mapping and data from the Florida Atlas of Marine Resources16 was used to estimate seagrass habitat.

16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Version 1.2, July 1998.

21


Record of Decision

In correspondence to the FAA dated October 24, 2003,17 and February 19, 2004,18 the FDEP noted that it had significant concerns about proposed alternatives at the Existing Site and their potential impacts to Class II Waters, seagrass habitat, and State sovereign submerged lands. The FAA also has had extensive discussions with the USACE, NMFS, and the USFWS regarding the FDEP’s concerns.

Class II Waters of the State/Seagrass Specific natural environment criteria in the Level 2 analysis focused on an alternative’s impacts to Class II Waters of the State of Florida, seagrass habitat, and State sovereign submerged lands. The acreage of impacts to Class II Waters for each alternative includes the acreage of submerged seagrass habitat within Goose Bayou/North Bay. Each alternative carried forward to the Level 2 analysis was reviewed to determine impacts on Class II Waters of the State of Florida, as defined by 62-302.400 F.A.C. Impacts to Class II Waters Conditionally Approved for shellfish harvesting, sovereign submerged land, and seagrass habitat in Goose Bayou have been determined to be significant, with limited success for mitigation. Therefore, alternatives having impacts to Class II Waters/seagrass habitat did not meet this criterion.

Sovereign Submerged Lands Chapter 253 of the Florida Statutes, State Lands, and the implementing rule 18-21 F.A.C., Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management, are the relevant governing statutes and regulations for sovereign submerged lands. Based on information provided by the FDEP, alternatives that propose an extension of the runway into or over State sovereign submerged lands do not meet the criteria as described in the referenced regulations. The proposed activity is not water-dependent and is not necessary for shoreline stabilization, access to navigable water, or for a public water management project. Additionally, the State of Florida has noted that there appear to be other reasonable alternatives to filling in or over State sovereign submerged lands, which the FDEP would evaluate in determining if a variance could be issued to fill in or over State sovereign submerged lands.

Section 404 Permit of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 A permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq., would be required by USACE for any dredge and fill impacts to Goose Bayou/North Bay. Coordination with NMFS, the USFWS, and the EPA would be required as part of the permitting process. NMFS, in commenting on a previous Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the Airport Sponsor for a proposed runway extension into Goose Bayou, noted that the loss of bay bottoms and seagrass would have a significant adverse impact on living marine resources, and it was suggested that other alternatives to filling within Goose Bayou and North Bay be considered. The USFWS also has expressed concern that replacement of seagrass communities is unrealistic and that seagrass habitat is an irreplaceable resource. The USFWS indicated that a proposed extension of the existing primary runway would not only result in the loss of seagrass, but also would result in the loss of other estuarine subtidal habitat. The FAA’s discussions in 2004 with NMFS, the FDEP, and the USACE indicated that permits historically have not been issued for significant fill impacts to seagrass habitat. This is due in part to the difficulty in replacing these types of resources. Any alternative that impacts seagrass habitat would not meet this criterion.

17 Letter from David B. Struhs, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Virginia Lane, Federal

Aviation Administration, October 24, 2003.

18 Letter from David B. Struhs, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Virginia Lane, Federal

Aviation Administration, February 19, 2004.

22


Record of Decision

6.2.2 Community Impacts Each alternative that was carried forward to the Level 2 analysis was reviewed to determine its direct impact on the local community. While residential and business relocation totals provide some indication of the level of community disruption each alternative would create, they also provide a basis to estimate other significant community impacts. These impacts include the availability of comparable replacement housing, loss of property tax revenue base, loss of school enrollment, and loss or reduction in public services.

Business and Residential Relocations and Comparable Replacement Housing Each alternative was analyzed to determine the number of off-site business and residential units that would need to be relocated. A business or residential unit would be relocated if it is within the estimated construction limits and/or within the runway protection zone of a specific alternative. Any alternative with more than 225 single-family relocations or with more than 46 mobile home relocations would fail this criterion. These thresholds were based on an analysis of suitable replacement housing that was expected to be available in the area.

Tax Revenue Base A review was completed in March 2004 of the property tax revenue generated in Bay County and the effect of the loss of tax revenue that would be associated with residential and business relocations. The loss of property tax revenue for each alternative was compared to the total property tax revenue for Bay County.

Reduction in Public School Enrollment This evaluation criterion addresses the extent to which an alternative disrupts public school enrollment, a component of the disruption of established communities. A review of available school data from the Bay District Schools indicates that at least one elementary, middle, and high school would be affected by the alternatives under consideration at the Existing Site.

Safety and Emergency Access to Residential Communities Some alternatives would require the closing or dead-ending of roads in the runway safety area or runway protection zone. This could impact safety and emergency response times in the local area street network. As a result of the partial or complete street closings, less direct access would be provided to the remaining areas, and the longer routes would likely result in increased travel times. The increased access time would result in increased response time for safety and emergency services (police, fire, and emergency medical).

6.2.3 Level 2 Findings Based on the Level 2 evaluation discussed in Sections 3.8 and 3.9 of the Final EIS and summarized in Table 3-3 of the Final EIS, the following alternatives were identified as not meeting the Level 2 criteria. The reasons these alternatives do not meet the Level 2 criteria are summarized as follows:

Existing Site - Extend Runway 14-32, 6,800 Feet Northwest — impacts to Florida Class II Waters, sovereign submerged lands, and seagrasses.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 14-32, 6,800 Feet Both Directions — impacts to Florida Class II Waters, sovereign submerged lands, and seagrasses.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 14-32 with Declared Distances — impacts to Florida Class II Waters, sovereign submerged lands, and seagrasses.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 14-32 with EMAS Scenario 1— impacts to Florida Class II Waters, sovereign submerged lands, and seagrasses.

23


Record of Decision

Existing Site - Extend Runway 14-32 with EMAS Scenario 3— impacts to Florida Class II Waters and sovereign submerged lands.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 14-32, 8,400 Feet Northwest — impacts to Florida Class II Waters, sovereign submerged lands, and seagrasses.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 14-32, 8,400 Feet Both Directions — impacts to Florida Class II Waters, sovereign submerged lands, and seagrasses.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 5-23, 6,800 Feet Southwest — shortage of comparable replacement housing; loss of 7.22 percent of Bay County property tax revenue.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 5-23, 6,800 Feet Northeast — shortage of comparable replacement housing; loss of 7.09 percent of Bay County property tax revenue; displacement of students from six public schools.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 5-23, 6,800 Feet in Both Directions — shortage of comparable replacement housing; loss of 8.03 percent of Bay County property tax revenue; displacement of students from six public schools.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 5-23, 8,400 Feet Southwest — shortage of comparable replacement housing; loss of 8.90 percent of Bay County property tax revenue; change in access for emergency service personnel.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 5-23, 8,400 Feet Northeast — shortage of comparable replacement housing; loss of 8.25 percent of Bay County property tax revenue; displacement of students from six public schools; change in access for emergency service personnel.

Existing Site - Extend Runway 5-23, 8,400 Feet Both Directions — shortage of comparable replacement housing; loss of 10.6 percent of Bay County property tax revenue; displacement of students from six public schools; change in access for emergency service personnel.

6.3 Description of Alternatives Retained for Detailed Consideration

The Draft EIS analyzed five alternatives in terms of their potential environmental effects:

• No-Action Alternative • Existing Site – Extend Runway 14-32, 6,800 Feet Southeast • Existing Site – Extend Runway 14-32, 8,400 Feet Southeast • West Bay Site – Runway 16-34, 6,800 Feet (referred to in the Final EIS as Scenario 1) • West Bay Site – Runway 16-34, 8,400 Feet (Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project)

The FAA did not identify a preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. Agencies and the public were afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS, and the FAA considered all written and oral comments received on the Draft EIS before identifying its preferred alternative in the Final EIS. In response to several comments submitted to the FAA, two variations of existing alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS were subsequently added to the Final EIS for consideration:

• Existing Site – Extend Runway 14-32, 6,800 Feet Southeast EMAS Scenario 2 • West Bay Site – Runway 16-34, 6,800 Feet Scenario 2

The FAA has had an opportunity to complete full disclosure and analysis of potential impacts associated with the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS. Comparisons of direct impacts of the seven alternatives are included in Tables 4 and 5 of this ROD and Tables 3-5 and 3-6 of the Final

24


Record of Decision

EIS. The FAA also analyzed secondary and cumulative impacts, which are described in Sections 5.5 and 5.26 of the Final EIS. The seven alternatives are summarized below.

No-Action Alternative - NEPA and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) require that a No-Action Alternative be considered and evaluated in assessment of environmental impacts . The No-Action Alternative means the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project would not be implemented, and the resulting environmental effects from taking no action would serve as a baseline from which to compare the effects of permitting the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project or an alternative to proceed. The No-Action Alternative provides a benchmark for comparison, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of the environmental effects of the various alternatives with the conditions of the site with no immediate improvements. The No-Action Alternative for the Final EIS means there would be no extensions to the existing airfield runways (including no construction related improvements to existing deficient runway safety areas).

Existing Site – Extend Runway 14-32, 6,800 Feet Southeast - This alternative consists of a 1,437-foot runway extension to the southeast end of the runway to provide the required runway length and meet RSA requirements off both runway ends. This alternative (depicted on Figure 3-8 and Figure G-1 in Appendix G of the Final EIS) would result in a primary runway having 6,800 feet of full-strength and fully useable pavement with an associated RSA centered on the runway centerline 500 feet in width for a total of 8,800 feet in length (6,800 feet of runway plus 1,000 feet of RSA beyond each runway end). This alternative would require the construction of SR 390 in a tunnel beneath the extended runway/runway safety area alignment. If a runway is constructed 6,800 feet to the southeast, a transmission line would be impacted. If the transmission line is considered an obstruction under 14 CFR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, relocation of the transmission line would required either above or below ground.

The power poles and transmission line penetrate the existing approach surface for Runway 14-32. The penetration of the approach surface by the transmission line for the Extend Runway 14-32, 6,800 Feet alternative occurs at 1,937 feet from the beginning of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). See Figure 5-70 of the Final EIS. The maximum elevation of the transmission line is approximately 90.4 feet (MSL), while the RPZ elevation at the intersectio

Documents

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ... · labeled as Section 2.2.3, and the text under the heading Composite Redevelopment Scenario for the Existing Site should be labeled